(I was, I now recognize, unintentionally deplatformed here because Substack had switched to a no-human totally automated system for enabling writers to sign in, and it led in circles, so I haven’t been able to sign in ever since October 12th. By a stroke of luck, I was finally able to sign in today; and, so, here is today’s article:)

14 November 2024, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

33 Questions About Ame... Thomas E. Woods Best Price: $2.91 Buy New $9.99 (as of 07:05 UTC - Details) On November 13th, I headlined “Why Trump Must Fire His National Security Advisor Mike Waltz”, and documented that Waltz advises Trump to allow Ukraine to use U.S. weapons in order to bomb The Kremlin — something that (as I explained) even the deeply neoconservative President Biden had finally (on October 10th) decided not to do. Later that day (November 13th), Trump announced his appointment of Tulsi Gabbard to be his Director of National Intelligence (DNI) — the U.S. President’s eyes and ears on the latest confirmed information from all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies (all member-agencies of the U.S.A. Intelligence Community), such as the CIA, FBI, and Defense Intelligence Agency. The fight to confirm her in the almost totally Deep-State-controlled U.S. Senate will be huge, but any Republicans who vote against her will be conspicuously on the side of Hillary Clinton and (since she’s hated by that Party) might become defeated at the next election, and any Democrats who vote against Gabbard will lose all support from the significant progressive segment of that Party’s electorate; so, the result could go either way. I think that her appointment will be approved.

Unless Mr. Waltz will be taking a crash course on the actual history entailed in protecting U.S. national security (which would have to include, at a bare minimum, all of the linked-to documents in my November 13th article, as well as in the documents that are linked-to therein), and correct himself on that matter prior to Inauguration Day, 20 January 2025, Trump will be informed by Gabbard that the National Security Advisor (NSA) Waltz’s recommendation to say yes to the Ukrainian President’s (Volodmyr Zelensky’s) request for permission to be granted to use U.S. weapons to bomb The Kremlin would almost certainly lead, in very short order, to a nuclear war between Russia and the United States, WW3.

At that point — if not even sooner — President Trump will almost certainly appoint a different person to be his National Security Advisor.

The DNI doesn’t only report to the President, but also advises the President. This is perhaps the most important post in the Administration of any U.S. President. Beyond serving merely as a reporter of facts to the President, the DNI also serves, upon the President’s invitation, as the principal advisor to the President of the United States, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council on all intelligence matters. The DNI, supported by his/her Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), produces the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), a top-secret document including intelligence from all 17 Intelligence Community (IC) agencies, which Brief is handed each morning to the President of the United States. If the President will fail to invite the DNI to advise and not only to report, to the President, then the President will likely replace that DNI, because the DNI is the only individual who receives all of this information; the NSA doesn’t. The NSA is one of many federal posts that are superfluous (if not even worse).

The DNI position received its power from the President on 18 February 2005, when GW Bush reorganized the U.S. Intelligence Community and transferred to the Director of National Intelligence the authority that, till the creator of the CIA, Truman’s, time, had rested with the Director of the CIA: the power to produce the President’s Daily Brief on intelligence.

The CIA is one of many federal agencies that are superfluous (if not even worse — anti-Constitutional) because the actual central intelligence agency of the U.S.A. is, and since 2005 has been, the ODNI. The only other powers that the CIA had had (which were not transferred) were the Directorate of Operations within the CIA, which in 2005 became re-named the National Clandestine Service (NCS), but under President Biden they were “rebranding” it back again to the Directorate of Operations, because the straightforwardly named NCS was too-obviously an aristocratic dictatorial organization, a foreign coup-producing machine, at odds with, and inconsistent with, the intent of the U.S. Constitution, which was intended by its authors to produce a democratic republic, not any type of dictatorship nor empire. Already, back in 1983, after the 1976 (Frank) Church Committee hearings on the CIA (its Directorate of Operations) as being the aristocracy’s coup-producing machine, the Directorate of Operations was largely transferred to the so-called (but likewise funded largely by the U.S. Government) charity, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which continues the Truman-created coup-producing machine, such as in the Philippines, Bangladesh (and this), and, of course, Ukraine, but does all of this as a ‘charity’ (501(c)3) (or ‘nonprofit’), so that the U.S. regime’s acquisitions of new colonies (such as Ukraine in 2014) will be ‘acts of kindness’ instead of acts of greed.

The report by the Church Committee acknowledged (page 438) that “The CIA engages in both overt and clandestine activity within the United States,” but was not critical of it, except that they advised that it “could lead to an exploitation of cooperating Americans beyond that which they themselves envisioned,” etc. And the report was otherwise entirely uncritical, and avoided saying anything about coups. It explicitly accepted that there must be “The conduct of foreign covert action operations” (including coups). It acknowledged (p. 536) that “The U.S. intelligence community soon became a global city desk to support the role of global policeman,” but had no criticism against that “global policeman” role. Though it was a total cover-up, the Committee’s mere existence scared America’s Deep State to make some PR changes. Thus far, that is all of the change which has actually occurred.

The Politically Incorr... Thomas E. Woods Jr. Best Price: $1.51 Buy New $8.71 (as of 06:15 UTC - Details) Trump, during his campaign for re-election, made many promises to conservatives, which everybody knows about, but he also made many promises to progressives (of which I am one), which are far less well-known (and I have documented those promises here. They included: “With you at my side, we will demolish the Deep State, we will expell the war-mongers from our government, we will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists Marxists and fascists, we will throw off the sick political class that hates our country, we will rout the fake news media, and we will liberate America from these villains, once and for all.” With the appointment of Tulsi Gabbard as his DNI (and, though not yet as official, of RFK Jr. to head a “Make America Healthy Again” operation in the federal Government), maybe he’s not ignoring us, after all.

(I should note here that when I refer to “progressivism” I refer to the opposite of “conservatism,” not to the mixture of progressivism and conservatism that is called “liberalism,” which is actually the extremely hypocritical form of conservatism, which pretends to be compassionate toward the poor but is just as ruthless as conservatism is, so that, for liberals, tax-exempt ‘charities’ that are more for the benefit of the billionaires who create and fund them than they are for the benefit of the poor in order to help them to rise into the middle class, are doing what is actually the most important obligation that the government and taxes — NO ‘nonprofits’ — OUGHT to be funding. In other words: all ‘nonprofits’ are, to progressives, basically mere scams for billionaires, though viewed by liberals as authentic kindnesses. A progressive opposes all tax-advantages for the super-rich, but liberals join with conservatives in approving of those tax-advantages, which actually constitute government funding of increased wealth-inequality.)

This originally appeared on Eric’s Substack.